.

Dedicated to the military history and civilization of the Eastern Roman Empire (330 to 1453)

"Time in its irresistible and ceaseless flow carries along on its flood all created things and drowns them in the depths of obscurity."

- - - - Princess Anna Comnena (1083–1153) - Byzantine historian

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

The Byzantine Testudo and Shield Wall

EDITOR - Eastern Roman military history had suffered from a near total lack of proper histories written by those who witnessed the events. We historians have to fill in the lack of detailed information with what we know from similar events. In this case I can say that the Byzantine infantry units have not been given proper credit by historians.

Byzantine infantry have lived in the shadow of the Roman Legions. But the Byzantine Army stood centuries longer than the legions of Rome. They must have been doing something right.

When you take in all three of these articles at once you begin to see the highly complex nature of the Eastern Roman Army and the high degree of training of officers and soldiers.

Enjoy.

____________________________

The origin and development of Roman and Byzantine military terms have been the subject of numerous monographs,
though the absence of an up-to-date comprehensive
lexical work leaves many obscurities in this field. This
study examines the fulcum or foËlkon, both as a significant
Roman tactical development of intrinsic interest and as an exemplum
of the historical and linguistic problems posed by Greek,
Roman, and Byzantine military vocabulary.The word foËlkon
is first attested in the sixth-century Strategicon of the Emperor
Maurice to designate a compact, well-shielded infantry formation
reminiscent of both the testudo of earlier Roman warfare
and the hoplite phalanx of classical Greece. Maurice’s technical
description of the fulcum permits its identification in contemporary
historical narratives as the standard battle formation of the period.Maurice’s use of a
term drawn from military slang previously unattested in Roman
sources, together with the superficial resemblance of the fulcum
to the “shield-walls” conventionally associated with “Germanic”
warfare, has accentuated its apparent novelty and “unRomanness.” The term foËlkon first appears in Maurice’s Strategicon, . . . . Writing in the 590s, the author (hereafter “Maurice”) of this
comprehensive military treatise combined in deliberately simple
Greek earlier written material with a thorough knowledge of the
organisation, training, tactics, and everyday routines of the contemporary Roman armyMaurice prescribes principles of cavalry deployment
and tactics modeled on the Avar armies of the period, the
Strategicon is on the whole a “codification” or restatement of
existing regulations, commands, and procedures in the form of
an official “handbook” for officers.

Emperor Maurice (reign 582 - 602). Painting by Emilian

Maurice chose
to write in a plain vernacular, sacrificing stylistic concerns to
practical utility, “to which end, we have also frequently
employed Latin and other terms which have been in common
military use” . . . . the
Strategicon is primarily concerned with day-to-day routines and
often mundane technicalities, and is aimed at the middle-ranking
field officers of the East Roman army, whose literacy is
assumed throughout.Maurice subsequently outlines in more detail what foÊlkƒ peripate›n
involves. Before close-quarters contact
with the enemy, about two or three bowshots from the enemy
battle line, upon the order “iunge,” the infantry were to close in
from both the flanks and rear, a manoeuvre Maurice calls
pÊknvsiw or sf¤gjiw. Traditionally pÊknvsiw meant reducing the
space allotted to each man in a rank to two cubits (three feet),
creating a dense formation in which each man was still able to
manoeuvre and employ his weaponry; this conventional “close
order” appears to correspond to what Maurice describes. During this manoeuvre “the men deployed at the front come together
side-by-side until they are shield-boss to shield-boss with
one another”, while those in the ranks
behind stand “almost glued to one another” . Maurice remarks that the rearguards should shove from behind, if necessary, pushing
nervous recruits into formation and maintaining a straight battle
line.Thereafter, just outside the range of enemy missiles, the infantry
formed a foËlkon:

Emperor Maurice: "They advance in a fulcum, whenever, as the battle lines are
coming close together, both ours and the enemy’s, the archery is
about to commence, and those arrayed in the front line are not
wearing mail coats or greaves. He [the herald] orders, “a d
fulco.” And those arrayed right at the very front mass their
shields together until they come shield-boss to shield-boss,
completely covering their stomachs almost to their shins. The
men standing just behind them, raising their shields and resting
them on the shield-bosses of those in front, cover their chests
and faces, and in this way they engage."

In operations against enemy infantry, therefore, the foËlkon
was a compact formation in which the front two ranks formed a
“shield-wall.” Maurice characterises this shield wall as “shield-boss to shield-boss”, which
should be understood as a colloquial expression rather than a
literal description. Although Maurice does not define specific
measurements, he nowhere implies that the transition to a
foËlkon involved reducing still further the intervals between the
files, which after pÊknvsiw were already “shield-boss to shieldboss”
at the front and “almost glued together” at the rear. This
would in any case have fatally restricted the unit’s ability to
manoeuvre and fight, and rendered impossible much of
Maurice’s subsequent account of how the attack should
develop. Each man continued to operate in the traditional
“close-order” allotment of roughly three feet, so that the edges
of his shield just overlapped those of the men to either side, but
he retained sufficient space to advance, throw missiles, and
slash to his front with a spatha.It appears that “advancing in a foËlkon” entailed simply an
additional defensive measure by the front two ranks, the pur-pose of which was to protect the front of the formation against
missiles as it advanced. This would have been particularly the
case when fighting the Persians, whose archery remained a
tactical problem throughout the late Roman period.

Persian Sassanid Cataphract armored horse archer.The Shield Wall at the Battle of Callinicum.We have first hand information on the use of the Roman shield wall/testuda from the historian Procopius who was at the side of General Belisarius during the fight..Procopius: "Then the Romans turned their backs to the river so that no movement to surround them might be executed by the enemy, and as best they could under the circumstances were defending themselves against their assailants.

And again the battle became fierce, although the two sides were not evenly matched in strength; for foot-soldiers, and a very few of them, were fighting against the whole Persian cavalry. Nevertheless the enemy were not able either to rout them or in any other way to overpower them. For standing shoulder to shoulder they kept themselves constantly massed in a small space, and they formed with their shields a rigid, unyielding barricade, so that they shot at the Persians more conveniently than they were shot at by them. Many a time after giving up, the Persians would advance against them determined to break up and destroy their line, but they always retired again from the assault unsuccessful. For their horses, annoyed by the clashing of the shields, reared up and made confusion for themselves and their riders."

___________________________

The
internal structure of late Roman infantry units ensured that men
in the front ranks would know what to do. The less-experienced
troops were positioned in the centre of the formation,
sandwiched between the junior officers; the “rearguards” prevented flight and literally shoved men into
formation, while the “file-leaders” were regularly issued with additional defensive
equipment commensurate with their more exposed position,
which in this period might include basic items like corselets, as
well as greaves and stronger shields, although Maurice notes
that even the file-leaders might lack armour. In this solution to
the problem of arranging troops of varied quality, success
depended less on individual weapons training, and more on
unit cohesion, discipline, and stamina.Within one bowshot of the enemy line, the Roman light
infantry began shooting arrows from the rear at a high
trajectory. If the heavy infantry were armed with the leadweighted
darts commonly called martiobarbuli or other missiles, the formation halted, while the
front ranks, fixing their spears
into the ground, showered the enemy with these projectiles. Late
Roman close-order infantry employed an impressive number
and variety of missiles, which allowed them to generate casualties and disruption as the battle lines closed, and gave
them some of the capabilities traditionally assigned to light
infantry. Maurice’s description lacks some details a modern
reader would require, but which might have been obvious to a
contemporary; presumably the men in the first rank forming the
lower tier of the “shield-wall” did not participate in this missile
exchange. If such projectiles were unavailable, then closing with
the enemy, those at the front hurled their spears like javelins
and drew their spathae to fight hand-to-hand, while “those
standing behind them, covering their own heads with their
shields”, assisted by
throwing their spears overhead. This last remark does not mean
that the whole formation was covered over in the manner of the
classical, shed-like testudo, merely that the rear ranks should
take care to shield themselves from enemy missiles falling from
a higher trajectory. This expedient relates to the changed
dynamics of the fighting after closing with the enemy line. It is
probable that at close-quarters with enemy infantry the Roman
shield-wall was dismantled, having served its primary function
as a protective screen against missiles. Maurice suggests that
there was greater danger of casualties among the front ranks
during the period of approach than in the subsequent hand-tohand
fighting, when they would no longer be a target for enemy
projectiles, but those to the rear remained exposed to continuous
fire from overhead. The foËlkon was difficult to manoeuvre, but afforded protection during the last and most
dangerous stage of the advance, while from behind the shieldwall
the other ranks of close-order infantry and the light
infantry to their rear could maintain a constant shower of projectiles. There would have been a concomitant
reduction in the momentum in the attack, which perhaps
exposed the infantry formation to a longer barrage, but as with
the cavalry tactics Maurice describes elsewhere, speed of attack
was sacrificed to the essential consideration of tactical
cohesion.

Maurice also describes Roman infantry forming a foËlkon
when confronting an enemy cavalry charge, though these
different tactical circumstances required certain modifications:

Emperor Maurice: "If the enemy [cavalry], coming within a bow shot, attempts to
break or dislodge the phalanx, which is hazardous for them,
then the infantry close up in the regular manner. And the first,
second, and third man in each file are to form themselves into a foËlkon, that is, one shield upon another, and having thrust
their spears straight forward beyond their shields, fix them
firmly in the ground, so that those who dare to come close to
them will readily be impaled. They also lean their shoulders
and put their weight against their shields so that they might
easily endure the pressure from those outside. The third man,
standing more upright, and the fourth, holding their spears like
javelins either stab those coming close or hurl them and draw
their swords. And the light infantry with the cavalry [stationed
to the rear] shoot arrows."

These orders clearly describe a variation suited to cavalry
combat, with advice on how to convert the shield-wall into a
physical barrier against horsemen.Maurice’s description of a foËlkon as an anti-cavalry
measure differs in detail from the formation he describes
operating against enemy infantry, and again not every aspect of
the deployment is immediately clear to the modern reader.
Whenever Roman infantry oppose cavalry, Maurice requires the
front three ranks “to form themselves into a foËlkon, that is
one shield upon another”, or a “shield-wall.” It is probable, though
nowhere explicitly stated, that in this stationary and strictly
defensive tactical context the men were positioned more closely
than in the manoeuvrable foËlkon deployed against infantry,
perhaps equating to the traditional one cubit (one and a half
feet) spacing the classical Tacticians called sunaspismÒw. Such dense, well-shielded formations were essential in
generating the collective morale required to stand in the face of
charging horsemen. Maurice explains that the front three ranks
should “fix their spears firmly in the ground”, projecting towards the enemy, though the men
of the third rank are later required to thrust or throw their
weapons. A clue to how these three ranks were positioned is offered by Maurice’s incidental remark that the men of the third
rank are “standing higher” or “more upright”. The clear implication is that the first and second ranks
are lower, probably kneeling and stooping respectively. Maurice
nowhere explicitly states this, but, as previously noted, he
makes assumptions about the reader’s knowledge, and it will be
demonstrated below that this arrangement is attested in earlier
periods. We can therefore envisage that the first rank knelt,
while the second rank crouched, resting the rims of their shields
on the shield-bosses of the first rank, and both ranks thrust
forward their spears, fixing their spear-butts into the ground.
The men of the third rank, “standing more upright,” in turn
rested the rims of their shields on the shield-bosses of the
second rank, and more actively engaged any enemy horsemen
who approached.

Assuming even large infantry shields of
around a metre in diameter, a sloping “shield-wall” constructed
by the front three ranks would reach a height of just over two
metres, this additional height being necessary to counter the
more elevated position of a mounted enemy. Maurice writes
that the men of the third rank “holding their spears like javelins
either stab those coming close or hurl them,” meaning they wield
their spears overarm and projecting above the shield-wall,
ready to thrust or throw them as opportunities arose. This arrangement of the first three ranks explains how the men of the
third rank, with spears of about two metres in length, were
expected to stab the enemy horsemen—in effect the front three
ranks were so close together as to operate as a single fighting
line. The men of the fourth rank, at a greater remove and unable
to stab the enemy with their spears, participated by throwing
their weapons over the heads of the first three ranks whenever a
target presented itself, and presumably replaced casualties in
the battle line.When confronted
by mounted opponents, sixth-century Roman infantry regularly
arrayed in a compact defensive “phalanx” fronted by a “shieldwall”
bristling with spears. The Syriac Chronicle of pseudoJoshua
Stylites reports that near Constantina in 502 some
Roman infantry units, abandoned by their own cavalry and
facing large numbers of Persian horsemen, “drew up in battle
array, forming what is called a ‘chelone’ or ‘tortoise’, and fought for a long time,” though ultimately unsuccessfully. The word
the chronicler uses is a Syriac transliteration of xel≈nh, the
standard Greek equivalent to Latin testudo; I shall return below
to the relationship between foËlkon and testudo. A clearer and
more successful example is the battle of Callinicum in 531. After
the defeat and flight of the Roman cavalry, a small force of
infantry and dismounted cavalry covered the Roman retreat in a
manner strikingly reminiscent of Maurice’s foËlkon:

"the infantry, and few of them indeed, were fighting against the
whole Persian cavalry. Nevertheless, the enemy could neither
rout them nor otherwise overpower them. For constantly massed
together shoulder-to-shoulder into a small space, and forming
with their shields a very strong barrier, they shot at the
Persians more conveniently than they were shot at by them.
Frequently withdrawing, the Persians would advance against
them so as to break up and destroy their line, but retired again
unsuccessful."

Holding firm in the face of charging cavalry was one of the most
psychologically demanding tasks for infantry; not only was late
Roman infantry capable of standing up to cavalry attacks but
deterring cavalry was actually one of its primary functions. On
the sixth-century battlefield infantry retained an important,
albeit more passive role, serving principally as a firm bulwark, behind which Roman cavalry, employing highly fluid tactics,
could withdraw and regroup if pushed back. Given sufficient
training and morale, infantry possessed the potential for greater
cohesion and more accurate firepower than cavalry, and when
combined with archers and slingers the effects on enemy horsemen
could be devastating.Finally, it is to be noted that even late Roman cavalry, in
moments of crisis or simply wherever tactically beneficial,
transformed themselves into infantry and also arrayed in a
foËlkon. A minor action in Lazica in 550 is instructive, where
Roman and allied cavalry, finding themselves suddenly
outnumbered by Persian horseman, dismounted and

"arrayed themselves on foot in a phalanx as deep as possible, and
all stood forming a close front against the enemy and thrusting
out their spears against them. And the Persians did not know
what to do, for they were unable to charge their opponents, now that they were on foot, nor could they break up the phalanx,
because the horses reared up, annoyed by the spear points and
the clashing of shields."

There are numerous other late Roman examples of this tactical
expedient and it is expressly what the Strategicon enjoins
cavalry to do in these circumstances.

The tortoise formation was one of the prime examples of Roman ingenuity at warfare.(Roman-Empire.net)

Later Byzantine Development

Other than Maurice, the only author to use the term foËlkon
in a late antique context is Theophanes Confessor (writing ca
810–814), in his account of Heraclius’ campaigns against the
Persians (622–628), which occurred a generation after the
composition of the Strategicon.

Theophanes writes that
at the battle of Nineveh in 627 the Persian commander Rhazates “arrayed his forces in three foËlka”. Here Theophanes, who uses the word nowhere
else, appears to mean simply a battle line divided into three
broad divisions rather than Maurice’s testudo-like infantry
formation. Theophanes himself elsewhere reports this tripartite
deployment by Persian armies, employing non-technical
language to designate the three “divisions”, and
he notes that the Roman line was similarly divided into three
“phalanxes”; indeed, sixth- and
early seventh-century Roman sources indicate that this was a
regular practice of Persian armies. Theophanes therefore uses
the word foËlkon differently than does Maurice, as simply a
generic term for a large body of troops, whether Roman or
foreign.

. . . . two works ascribed to the Emperor Leo VI (886–912),
the so-called Problemata and Tactica or Tactical Constitutions. The
Problemata, the first work Leo composed in this genre, is
preserved only in Mediceo-Laurentianus. It takes the
form of a “military catechism,” in which the compiler poses
questions which he then answers with excerpta from Maurice’s
Strategicon . . . . the Problemata genuinely reflect late ninth-century practice;
continued references to Avars and Persians do not inspire
confidence in its contemporary utility. For the present it suffices
to note that in answer to the question “How do they advance
when the archery is about to commence?” the compiler reproduces
Maurice’s description of the foËlkon operating against enemy
infantry with only very minor changes, though he omits his anticavalry
version.

Leo appears not to
understand Maurice’s reference to “shield-bosses”, which is almost certainly late Roman terminological
usage; the limited evidence suggests that by the tenth century
boÊkoulon had come metonymically to mean “shield” in toto. It
is possible that Leo’s textual alteration also reflects changes in
shield design and construction in the intervening period.

. . . . . the
treatise on guerrilla warfare Per‹ paradrom∞w or De velitatione
ascribed to Nicephorus II Phocas (963–969). The author
possessed a detailed knowledge of Leo’s Tactica and its tactical
precepts. Yet throughout he employs foËlkon to designate a
body of troops in formation, apparently infantry or cavalry, but
more often the latter, sent out to protect smaller parties engaged in foraging and pillaging,
accompanying them into designated localities in the morning,
remaining at hand during the day, and escorting them back to
camp in the evening. This sense is clear from the often-repeated
formula “a foËlkon, whose role is to protect them while they
are dispersed for plundering”.

A foËlkon might
also be stationed outside the camp to protect grazing horses or
livestock. The author mentions foËlka only in the context of invading Arab forces, and his recommendations for surprise
attacks on Arab encampments or dispersed raiding parties are
premised on the potential presence of such a foËlkon coming to
the rescue and how Byzantine troops should counter it. These
protective escorts were not unique to Arab tactical
arrangements nor Arab in origin, however; the author merely
uses a Greek term to describe what was a standard feature of
both Arab and Byzantine armies.

(Mid tenth century military documents are nearly identical to those of Maurice.)

Again it is important to appreciate,
however, that new terminology is not necessarily indicative of a
new phenomenon. In the late sixth century Maurice clearly
describes, and in very similar language, identical protective
escorts guarding foraging parties:

Emperor Maurice: "When some men go out on a plundering expedition, not all of
them are to be occupied in pillaging, but they must be divided
into two—those who are engaged in plundering, and the majority who escort them in close formation as their
guard, whether the attack is against a country, an enemy
entrenchment, a herd of beasts, a baggage train, or any other
objective. Do this also when the whole army collectively
undertakes a plundering expedition, again so that not all the
men are occupied in pillaging, but if an opportunity for foraging
supplies should arise, some must engage in foraging, others in
close formation must escort them, otherwise, if all the available
men were occupied in pillaging or foraging, some surprise attack
or ambush would be undertaken by the enemy and our soldiers
would not be able to rally themselves."

This type of escort in force, to which Maurice applies no
specific terminology, is precisely what mid tenth-century
authors designate a foËlkon. In fact this was a standard
procedure for Roman armies dating back at least to the early
Principate, and the later Byzantine usage merely reflects
changes in terminology rather than practice.

Given the
difficulties we have seen in the testimony of Leo’s tactical
writings, it is impossible to be certain how and when foËlkon
came to mean the mounted escorts or patrols attested in mid
tenth-century military literature, distinct from the battle
formation for infantry described in Maurice’s Strategicon, and
the evidence of the intervening period perhaps points to long-term multiple usage, though the underlying concept of a
compact body of troops arrayed for combat is consistent.

The
variant meanings of foËlkon over this four-hundred-year
period therefore correspond to the broad development of late
Roman-Byzantine military vocabulary.

10 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Pretty articulated article. Neverdeless the Testudo or Shield Wall do nothing other than to late the fall , on fighthing soldiers numbers , on horse fighting ability , and field artillery . As times went over, that formation came to a no real asset on fighting battles .Even after a kind of similar formation , came as a bulwark of the spanish empire for a century , as the "tertios" , with lancers , musqueters , and swordmen , the long range artillery , and close quarter pistols on horses or musqueters , as the french did in Rocoi , ended the one century supremacy of the spanish in europe battle fields .Neverdeless , a good article .That emperor Maurice maybe will may achieved more great things and shore the empire if not that Phocas that bring to weaken the empire on so many things for the future .As many others times in history dissent insider own ranks made empires , and States weaken . Althought they may cause the showing up of other kind of totalitarian regimes , or police states .

The same Shield Wall mean nothing much , as men fighting shoulder by shoulder in lines till , some argue , the WWI , or into the Crimean War , the American Civil War .Field artillery , bring massive casualties on men that fight side by side ... mosthly after the use of shrappnell devices on cannons . It was suicidal to put togheter great number of infantery men , in a open chest line of fire .Even the Romans may use siege guns , or else trebuchet kind of guns , to emaciate the enemy before start a cohorte move on that kind of testudo way they fought ( as see in Gladiator ).As most modern armies do . Massive aerial or total control of the air , and total battle field range ceiling , from guns and howitzers , or rocket launchers.

Even in modern warfare CQB fighthing , if war laws allowed it , first move on battle armies code , is flat buildings down before engage in urban fight .Not so efective always as one might think , as Mte Cassino , who allies bomb to rubble , in the assumption that the germans where allready there , to then the Fallschirjäger ( german paratroopers ) came up running to those ruins and put a hell of a fight , that only the polesin the british army , would put then down a few months latter , as they left that line of fire .

The archers in england armies that rout french horse charges in the 100 years war ... where defeat too in the end . So a line of battle is not so efective as one must think .Its a mix of assorted things , as even siege camp conditions in Henry V , Harfleur .For most well spoken Shakesperean words said , in the end the French prevail at the last of Calais stones . Guns , and siege and sapper skills do the job better , than a solid shield Wall .

Crazed Atilla in Cataleaunic Fields , got shields too , but he face massive arrows and javelins , from above that he cannot brake up hill .On those the Romans made a win , as the visigoths allies too .

Live Traffic for The Byzantine Military

Constantine the Great

Founder of Constantinople which would later be the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire for over one thousand years. Proclaimed religious tolerance of all religions throughout the empire. (306 - 337)

Julian the Philosopher

Born in the new city of Constantinople. Described himself as "first among equals", participated in debates and made speeches in the Constantinople Senate, fired thousands of bureaucrats, proclaimed that all the religions were equal before the law, author. (361 - 363)

Theodosius II

Emperor 408 to 450. Known for the Theodosian law code, and the construction of the Theodosian Walls of Constantinople. When Roman Africa fell to the Vandals in 439, both Eastern and Western Emperors sent forces to Sicily, to launch an attack at the Vandals at Carthage, but this project failed.

Leo I "The Thracian"

Emperor from 457–474. He was born Leo Marcellus in Thracia or in Dacia Aureliana province in the year 401 to a Thraco-Roman family. He served in the Roman army, rising to the rank of comes. Leo is notable for being the first Eastern Emperor to legislate in Greek rather than Latin. He worked to liberate North Africa from the Vandals with an expedition in 468 of 1,113 ships carrying 100,000 men, but in the end lost 600 ships.

Justinian The Great and Theodora

Emperor 527 to 565. Justinian was the last Roman Emperor to speak Latin as a first language. Justinian's reign is marked by the ambitious but only partly realized renovatio imperii, or "restoration of the Empire". His general Belisarius conquered the Vandal Kingdom in North Africa, extending Roman control to the Atlantic Ocean. Subsequently Belisarius, Narses, and other generals conquered the Ostrogothic Kingdom, restoring Dalmatia, Sicily, Italy, and Rome to the Empire after more than half a century of barbarian control. The prefect Liberius reclaimed most of southern Iberia, establishing the province of Spania. Under his rule there was a uniform rewriting of Roman law, the Corpus Juris Civilis, which is still the basis of civil law in many modern states. His reign also marked a blossoming of Byzantine culture, and his building program yielded such masterpieces as the church of Hagia Sophia.

Maurice

Emperor from 582 to 602. A prominent general in his youth, Maurice fought with success against the Sassanid Persians. Once he became Emperor, he brought the war with Persia to a victorious conclusion: the Empire's eastern border in the Caucasus was vastly expanded and for the first time in nearly two centuries the Romans were no longer obliged to pay the Persians thousands of pounds of gold annually for peace. Maurice campaigned extensively in the Balkans against the Avars – pushing them back across the Danube by 599. He also conducted campaigns across the Danube, the first Emperor to do so in over two hundred years. In the West, he established two large semi-autonomous provinces called exarchates, ruled by exarchs, or viceroys, of the Emperor. Maurice established the Exarchate of Ravenna, Italy in 584, the first real effort by the Empire to halt the advance of the Lombards. With the creation of the Exarchate of Africa in 590, he further solidified the empire's hold on the western Mediterranean.

Heraclius

Emperor 610 to 641. Heraclius' reign was marked by several military campaigns. The year Heraclius came to power the Empire was threatened on multiple frontiers. Heraclius immediately took charge of the ongoing war against the Sassanid Persians. The first battles of the campaign ended in defeat for the Byzantines; the Persian army fought their way to the Bosphorus. However, because Constantinople was protected by impenetrable walls and a strong navy, Heraclius was able to avoid total defeat. Heraclius drove the Persians out of Asia Minor and pushed deep into their territory, defeating them decisively in 627 at the Battle of Nineveh. Soon after his victory he faced a new threat of the Muslim invasions. In 634 the Muslims invaded Roman Syria, defeating Heraclius' brother Theodore. Within a short period of time the Arabs would also conquer Mesopotamia, Armenia, and Egypt.

Constantine IV - "The Bearded"

Emperor 668 to 685 AD. His reign saw the first serious check to nearly 50 years of uninterrupted Islamic expansion. Constantine organized the Empire for the massive First Arab Siege of Constantinople in 674–678. If Constantinople had fallen all of Europe would have been open to Islamic invasion.

Leo III - The Isaurian

Emperor 717 to 741. Defended the Empire during the Second Siege of Constantinople against an invading Arab army of 80,000 men and a fleet of over 2,500 ships. Leo reformed the laws with the elevation of the serfs into a class of free tenants. Leo began the iconoclast campaign.

Irene of Athens

Irene of Athens Byzantine Empress Regnant from 797 to 802. Prior to becoming Empress regnant, Irene was empress consort from 775 to 780, and empress dowager and regent from 780 to 797. It is often claimed she called herself basileus 'emperor'. In fact, she normally referred to herself as basilissa, 'empress', although there are three instances of the title basileus being used by her. Irene was born to the noble Greek Sarantapechos family of Athens. She married Leo IV in 769. Upon Leo's death she became regent for the future Constantine VI. Irene was almost immediately confronted with a conspiracy against her close to home and in Sicily. Irene withstood an invasion by a large Arab army. She subdued the Slavs of the Balkans and laid the foundations of Byzantine expansion and re-Hellenization in the area. Irene's most notable act was the restoration of the Orthodox veneration of icons (images of Christ or the saints). Pope Leo III, who needed help against enemies in Rome and who saw the throne of the Byzantine Emperor as vacant (lacking a male occupant), crowned Charlemagne as Roman Emperor in 800.

Theodora

Empress as the spouse of the Byzantine Emperor Theophilos, and regent of her son, Michael III, from Theophilos' death in 842 to 855. She carried on the government with a firm and judicious hand, and replenished the treasury. The Empress organized the Roman navy and army in multi-front wars against the Arabs and deterred the Bulgarians from an attempt at invasion.

Basil II - The Bulgar Slayer

Emperor 976 to 1025. Basil oversaw the stabilization and expansion of the Byzantine Empire's eastern frontier, and above all, the final and complete subjugation of Bulgaria, the Empire's foremost European foe, after a prolonged struggle. For this he was nicknamed by later authors as "the Bulgar-slayer" by which he is popularly known. At his death, the Empire stretched from Southern Italy to the Caucasus and from the Danube to the borders of Palestine, its greatest territorial extent since the Muslim conquests four centuries earlier.

Zoë Porphyrogenita

Zoë (c. 978 – June 1050) reigned as Byzantine Empress alongside her sister Theodora from April 19 to June 11, 1042. She was also enthroned as the Empress Consort to a series of co-rulers beginning with Romanos III in 1028 until her death in 1050 while married to Constantine IX. Theodora and Zoë appeared together at meetings of the Senate. Theodora was the junior empress, and her throne was situated slightly behind Zoë’s in all public occasions.

John II Komnenos and Irene of Hungary

Emperor from 1118 to 1143. The greatest of the Komnenian emperors. In the course of his twenty-five year reign, John made alliances with the Holy Roman Empire in the west, decisively defeated the Pechenegs in the Balkans, and personally led numerous campaigns against the Turks in Asia Minor. John's campaigns fundamentally changed the balance of power in the east, forcing the Turks onto the defensive and restoring to the Byzantines many towns, fortresses and cities right across the peninsula. In the southeast, John extended Byzantine control from the Maeander in the west all the way to Cilicia and Tarsus in the east. In an effort to demonstrate the Byzantine emperor's role as the leader of the Christian world, John marched into Muslim Syria at the head of the combined forces of Byzantium and the Crusader states.

Michael VIII Palaiologos

Reigned as Emperor 1259–1282. Michael VIII was the founder of the Palaiologan dynasty that would rule the Empire until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. He recovered Constantinople from the Latin Empire in 1261 and transformed the Empire of Nicaea into a restored Roman Empire. During his reign there was a temporary naval revival in which the Byzantine navy consisted of 80 ships.

Constantine XI Palaiologos

The Last Emperor of the Romans 1449 to 1453. Constantine faced the siege of Constantinople defending his city of 60,000 people with an army only numbering 7,000 men against an Ottoman army of over 80,000. He personally led the defence of the city and took an active part in the fighting alongside his troops in the land walls. At the same time, he used his diplomatic skills to maintain the necessary unity between the Genovese, Venetian and the Greek troops. When the city fell to the Turks he tore off his imperial ornaments so as to let nothing to distinguish him from any other soldier and led his remaining soldiers into a last charge where he was killed.

Total Pageviews

About Me

"Stood in firelight, sweltering. Bloodstain on chest like map of violent new continent. Felt cleansed. Felt dark planet turn under my feet and knew what cats know that makes them scream like babies in night.
Looked at sky through smoke heavy with human fat and God was not there. The cold, suffocating dark goes on forever and we are alone. Live our lives, lacking anything better to do. Devise reason later. Born from oblivion; bear children, hell-bound as ourselves, go into oblivion. There is nothing else.
Existence is random. Has no pattern save what we imagine after staring at it for too long. No meaning save what we choose to impose. This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It is us. Only us.
Streets stank of fire. The void breathed hard on my heart, turning its illusions to ice, shattering them. Was reborn then, free to scrawl own design on this morally blank world. Was Rorschach."
- - - Rorschach, Watchmen (1986)

Saturday Sultress - Meg Turney
-
*Queen of the Nerds*
I never heard of Meg but now she is on my radar.
*Megan LeeAnn* "*Meg*" *Turney* (born March 12, 1987) is an American
internet pers...

20 hours ago

Constantinople

Founded by by Constantine the Great in 324 AD, Constantinople was the captial of the the Eastern Roman Empire and the center of Western civilization for centuries.

Byzantine Algeria

The 6th century Byzantine walls, popularly known as "Solomon's Walls" and flanked by thirteen square towers.Tebessa, Algeria. At its peak the Empire stretched from Morocco and Spain to Italy, Egypt, the Euphrates River, the Caucasus Mountain to the Danube River.

Byzantine Mesopotamia

The citadel of the Roman-Byzantine fortress of Zenobia near Halabiye, Syria. View from the southern wall looking down to the Euphrates River.

Byzantine Italy

The Castle of Sant'Aniceto (also San Niceto) is an Eastern Roman Empire castle built in the early 11th century on a hill in Motta San Giovanni, now in the province of Reggio Calabria, southern Italy. It is one of the few examples of High Middle Ages architecture in Calabria, as well as one of the few well-preserved Byzantine fortifications in the world. The name derives from that of St. Nicetas, a Eastern Roman admiral who lived in the 7th-8th centuries. The castle is one of the few Byzantine fortifications subjected to the work of restoration and recovery.

Byzantine Croatia

The Byzantine Fortress of Tureta in Croatia. The fortress is the most significant structure on the Kornati islands dating from the Byzantine period. It is located on the island of Kornat and was probably built in the 8th century. It is assumed that the fortress was built up for military purposes to protect and control the navigation in this part of the Adriatic Sea.

Byzantine Egypt

Saint Catherine's Monastery lies on the Sinai Peninsula, Egypt. The fortified monastery was built by the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the 6th century AD, although there was already a church at the site erected by the Empress Helena in 330 AD. The Monastery also has a copy of the Achtiname, in which Muhammad bestowed his protection upon the monastery.

Byzantine Greece

Angelokastro or "Castle of the Angels" is one of the most important Byzantine castles of Greece. It is located on the island of Corfu at the top of the highest peak of the island's shoreline in the northwest coast near Palaiokastritsa and built on particularly precipitous and rocky terrain. It stands 1,000 ft (305 m) on a steep cliff above the Ionian Sea and surveys the City of Corfu and the mountains of mainland Greece to the southeast and a wide area of Corfu toward the northeast and northwest.

Byzantine Anatolia

The Roman-Byzantine Castle of Harput in Anatolia. The strong point Harput was part of both the Roman and Byzantine defensive systems. Eastern Anatolia saw many huge military campaigns from Roman to Byzantine times. This area was involved in multiple wars with the Persian Empire, Arabs and Turks.

Copyright Disclaimer

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

UNDER SECTION 107 OF COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 ALLOWANCE IS MADE FOR 'FAIR USE" FOR PURPOSES SUCH AS CRITICISM,COMMENT,NEWS REPORTING,TEACHING,SCHOLARSHIP AND RESEARCH. FAIR USE IS PERMITTED BY COPYRIGHT STATUE THAT OTHERWISE BE INFRINGING. NON-PROFIT,EDUCATION AND PERSONAL TIPS THE BALANCE IN FAVOR OF FAIR USE . . .